Political Crossfire Forums

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: So why do scientists claim that the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago. Is 7.194979128e+25 tons of hydrogen burning off the sun enough to make that much of a difference?





Actually they dont - nor have they ever made this claim

[Dr. Wojtyla]

cap'n queasy wrote: Mass extinctions did not cause piles of tens of thousands of dead animals to die all in the same spot at the same time and instantly buried all in the same spot.

They supposedly happened over hundreds of thousands of years, which is considered a short period time period, geologically.

All I know is there is a whole heck of a lot of animal skeletons buried in what used to be mud at the bottom of the ocean.

Looks like the results of a global flood to me.

But it is pointless to argue. :-D I agree with that.

Flooding is a routine occurence in history. Every time an Ice Age thaws, floods result.

[John]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: So why do scientists claim that the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago. Is 7.194979128e+25 tons of hydrogen burning off the sun enough to make that much of a difference?





Actually they dont - nor have they ever made this claim

Actually they do. But it's a pointless argument.....I was trying to show people the inconsistencies of what "scientists" claim.

But like I said...it's a pointless topic because they have no idea how big the sun is or how much it burns off a second. There is no possible way for them to measure such a thing and certainly no standard to compare the measurement to. I amazes me what people will lap up like trained dogs.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Actually they do. But it's a pointless argument.....I was trying to show people the inconsistencies of what "scientists" claim.

But like I said...it's a pointless topic because they have no idea how big the sun is or how much it burns off a second. There is no possible way for them to measure such a thing and certainly no standard to compare the measurement to. I amazes me what people will lap up like trained dogs.

It is only pointless because you dont have the data to back your claim.

How much the sun burns is found using

P = n kT = rho kT/(mu*mh), where

k = Boltzmann's constant
rho = mass density of gas (mass per unit volume)
mu is the mean mass per particle (nucleons and free electrons)
mh is the mass of the hydrogen atom

The mass of the sun is worked out using.

F = G mM/r2

Which is Newtons Universal Law Of Gravity.

Then apply Keplers third law of planetary motion to check the results as such

mg = F = mV2/RE

Doing the calculations (No i didn't lol) You get the mass of the Sun is 743 times the total mass of all the planets in the solar system and 330,000 times that of the Earth.
Technically, it is the mass of the sun that is 330,000 times as great as the mass of the Earth. Weight is a measure that depends on the amount of gravity to which a given mass is being subjected. The same amount of mass weighs a different amount on Earth, the moon, or the sun

An a website that may help a little

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/sun/sun_5.html

[John]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Actually they do. But it's a pointless argument.....I was trying to show people the inconsistencies of what "scientists" claim.

But like I said...it's a pointless topic because they have no idea how big the sun is or how much it burns off a second. There is no possible way for them to measure such a thing and certainly no standard to compare the measurement to. I amazes me what people will lap up like trained dogs.

It is only pointless because you dont have the data to back your claim.

How much the sun burns is found using

P = n kT = rho kT/(mu*mh), where

k = Boltzmann's constant
rho = mass density of gas (mass per unit volume)
mu is the mean mass per particle (nucleons and free electrons)
mh is the mass of the hydrogen atom

The mass of the sun is worked out using.

F = G mM/r2

Which is Newtons Universal Law Of Gravity.

Then apply Keplers third law of planetary motion to check the results as such

mg = F = mV2/RE

Doing the calculations (No i didn't lol) You get the mass of the Sun is 743 times the total mass of all the planets in the solar system and 330,000 times that of the Earth.
Technically, it is the mass of the sun that is 330,000 times as great as the mass of the Earth. Weight is a measure that depends on the amount of gravity to which a given mass is being subjected. The same amount of mass weighs a different amount on Earth, the moon, or the sun

An a website that may help a little

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/sun/sun_5.html

Nasa smasa. Trust me...they don't know how much fuel the sun burns. It's an un-measurable measurement. It's all based off things that we CAN measure here on earth...and assumed that the same is true for things like the sun.

And yes...what I'm telling you IS backed up by the scientific community. Basically, the less dense that the sun becomes by burning off its fuel....the hotter it burns. Have you not heard of the The Faint Young Sun Paradox?

http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Paradox_FYS.html
http://www.esse.ou.edu/fund_concepts/Fundamental_Concepts5/The_Paradox_of_the_Faint_Young_Sun.html
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2004-2&page=articlesu9.html

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Nasa smasa. Trust me...they don't know how much fuel the sun burns. It's an unmeasureable measurement. It's all based off things that we CAN measure here on earth...and assumed that the same is true for things like the sun.

And yes...what I'm telling you IS backed up by the scientific comunity. Basically, the less dense that the sun becomes by burning off it's fuel....the hotter it burns. Have you not heard of the The Faint Young Sun Paradox?
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Paradox_FYS.html
http://www.esse.ou.edu/fund_concepts/Fundamental_Concepts5/The_Paradox _of_the_Faint_Young_Sun.html
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2004-2&page= articlesu9.html


Well well - aren't we the expert. Here is what was actually said

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v555n2/52957/52957.html

which is sited here

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2004-2&page=articlesu9.html

At the beginning of its lifetime, the pp flux is about 75% of its current value and reaches 90% of its present value after 2.6 × 109 yr. At the current epoch, the flux is changing very slowly, about 4% per 109 yr. The pp flux reaches a maximum, 4% larger than its current value, at a solar age of 6.0 × 109 yr and then declines slowly and steadily to 96% of its present value at an age of 8 × 109 yr.

The article is talking about nutrino particles 7b 8b and 13n.

So I would suggest you do some real research instead of simply reading lunatic websites that tell you what to think

[John]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Nasa smasa. Trust me...they don't know how much fuel the sun burns. It's an unmeasureable measurement. It's all based off things that we CAN measure here on earth...and assumed that the same is true for things like the sun.

And yes...what I'm telling you IS backed up by the scientific comunity. Basically, the less dense that the sun becomes by burning off it's fuel....the hotter it burns. Have you not heard of the The Faint Young Sun Paradox?
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Paradox_FYS.html
http://www.esse.ou.edu/fund_concepts/Fundamental_Concepts5/The_Paradox _of_the_Faint_Young_Sun.html
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2004-2&page= articlesu9.html


Well well - aren't we the expert. Here is what was actually said

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v555n2/52957/52957.html

which is sited here

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2004-2&page=articlesu9.html

At the beginning of its lifetime, the pp flux is about 75% of its current value and reaches 90% of its present value after 2.6 × 109 yr. At the current epoch, the flux is changing very slowly, about 4% per 109 yr. The pp flux reaches a maximum, 4% larger than its current value, at a solar age of 6.0 × 109 yr and then declines slowly and steadily to 96% of its present value at an age of 8 × 109 yr.

The article is talking about nutrino particles 7b 8b and 13n.

So I would suggest you do some real research instead of simply reading lunatic websites that tell you what to think

"Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk. :-D

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

[John]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D

[Otacon]

It should be noted that the current length of days is based of the system developed by the Sumerians.

[Enoch]

John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D That's because you have a habit of ignoring anything that challenges your beliefs.

[John]

Enoch wrote: John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D That's because you have a habit of ignoring anything that challenges your beliefs.

Like what?

[Enoch]

John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D That's because you have a habit of ignoring anything that challenges your beliefs.

Like what? Unless I missed your response to it, and if I did I will apologize, but I don't recall you ever addressing the issue of hydrostatic equilibrium within the sun, which would contradict your "if it had more mass, it was much bigger" argument.

[John]

Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D That's because you have a habit of ignoring anything that challenges your beliefs.

Like what? Unless I missed your response to it, and if I did I will apologize, but I don't recall you ever addressing the issue of hydrostatic equilibrium within the sun, which would contradict your "if it had more mass, it was much bigger" argument.

Well, I don't have time to respond to every single point made, and I don't see how that would challenge what I believe. I'm still learning....I've learned more from this conversation about the sun than I knew coming in. Yet nothing seems to support the theory of evolution. It seems to me that the theory needs the environment of the planet earth to have been basically how it is now (for a long time even before life began) for the theory to make any sense.

[Enoch]

John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D That's because you have a habit of ignoring anything that challenges your beliefs.

Like what? Unless I missed your response to it, and if I did I will apologize, but I don't recall you ever addressing the issue of hydrostatic equilibrium within the sun, which would contradict your "if it had more mass, it was much bigger" argument.

Well, I don't have time to respond to every single point made, and I don't see how that would challenge what I believe. I'm still learning....I've learned more from this conversation about the sun than I knew coming in. Yet nothing seems to support the theory of evolution. It seems to me that the theory needs the environment of the planet earth to have been basically how it is now (for a long time even before life began) for the theory to make any sense. Do you have a response to hydrostatic equlibrium as it relates to your "the sun would be much bigger" argument?

[John]

Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D That's because you have a habit of ignoring anything that challenges your beliefs.

Like what? Unless I missed your response to it, and if I did I will apologize, but I don't recall you ever addressing the issue of hydrostatic equilibrium within the sun, which would contradict your "if it had more mass, it was much bigger" argument.

Well, I don't have time to respond to every single point made, and I don't see how that would challenge what I believe. I'm still learning....I've learned more from this conversation about the sun than I knew coming in. Yet nothing seems to support the theory of evolution. It seems to me that the theory needs the environment of the planet earth to have been basically how it is now (for a long time even before life began) for the theory to make any sense. Do you have a response to hydrostatic equlibrium as it relates to your "the sun would be much bigger" argument?

Well, it seems to me that hydrostatic equilibrium is what keeps the sun from exploding like a bomb. It doesn't necessarily mean that the sun will remain the same size, just that the size will equalize in proportion to gravity and pressure.

Is your argument that the sun will be smaller as you add mass to it because it will increase the amount of gravity?

What exactly do you think? That the temp of the earth was relatively the same as it is now?

[Enoch]

John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D That's because you have a habit of ignoring anything that challenges your beliefs.

Like what? Unless I missed your response to it, and if I did I will apologize, but I don't recall you ever addressing the issue of hydrostatic equilibrium within the sun, which would contradict your "if it had more mass, it was much bigger" argument.

Well, I don't have time to respond to every single point made, and I don't see how that would challenge what I believe. I'm still learning....I've learned more from this conversation about the sun than I knew coming in. Yet nothing seems to support the theory of evolution. It seems to me that the theory needs the environment of the planet earth to have been basically how it is now (for a long time even before life began) for the theory to make any sense. Do you have a response to hydrostatic equlibrium as it relates to your "the sun would be much bigger" argument?

Well, it seems to me that hydrostatic equilibrium is what keeps the sun from exploding like a bomb. It doesn't necessarily mean that the sun will remain the same size, just that the size will equalize in proportion to gravity and pressure.

Is your argument that the sun will be smaller as you add mass to it because it will increase the amount of gravity?

What exactly do you think? That the temp of the earth was relatively the same as it is now? Hydrostatic equilibrium states that the sun's size will remain at a relative constant (fluctuations do occur, but not a great rates).

As for the temperature of the Earth, it is likely that millions of years ago the temperature of the planet was higher, but not extraordinarily so.

[Wizard From Oz]

[quote]
Is your argument that the sun will be smaller as you add mass to it because it will increase the amount of gravity?

[quote]

No extra mass means a hotter core, which in turn pushes the size out. To see an extremely dynamic example of this google cehpid variables. These are a class of star you can watch from your back yard as their brightness varies

[John]

Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D That's because you have a habit of ignoring anything that challenges your beliefs.

Like what? Unless I missed your response to it, and if I did I will apologize, but I don't recall you ever addressing the issue of hydrostatic equilibrium within the sun, which would contradict your "if it had more mass, it was much bigger" argument.

Well, I don't have time to respond to every single point made, and I don't see how that would challenge what I believe. I'm still learning....I've learned more from this conversation about the sun than I knew coming in. Yet nothing seems to support the theory of evolution. It seems to me that the theory needs the environment of the planet earth to have been basically how it is now (for a long time even before life began) for the theory to make any sense. Do you have a response to hydrostatic equlibrium as it relates to your "the sun would be much bigger" argument?

Well, it seems to me that hydrostatic equilibrium is what keeps the sun from exploding like a bomb. It doesn't necessarily mean that the sun will remain the same size, just that the size will equalize in proportion to gravity and pressure.

Is your argument that the sun will be smaller as you add mass to it because it will increase the amount of gravity?

What exactly do you think? That the temp of the earth was relatively the same as it is now? Hydrostatic equilibrium states that the sun's size will remain at a relative constant (fluctuations do occur, but not a great rates).

As for the temperature of the Earth, it is likely that millions of years ago the temperature of the planet was higher, but not extraordinarily so.

It seems that most scientists agree that it would have been colder...not hotter. It seems to have to do with nuclear fusion not being as efficient when the gas is denser (for the same reason...the sun is getting hotter as it becomes less dense). It is also believed that slight variations in temperature greatly effect radiation intensity of nuclear fusion.

It seems that scientist would expect the earth to be a block of ice billions of years ago....although the according to the theory of evolution there would need to be warm water in order for organism to evolve. Scientists theorize that green house gases must have been much thicker...and therefore the earth was warm enough for these things to occur. Mind you...there is no evidence for this. And they are just inventing a theory to explain another theory...but that's pretty common anyway.

[John]

MG1962 wrote: Quote:
Is your argument that the sun will be smaller as you add mass to it because it will increase the amount of gravity?



No extra mass means a hotter core, which in turn pushes the size out. To see an extremely dynamic example of this google cehpid variables. These are a class of star you can watch from your back yard as their brightness varies

I agree....but from what I can gather the abiltiy for fusion in sun to occur (thermonuclear conversion of hydrogen into helium) decreases as the mass of the son increases. Why don't you look into what scientists call the Faint young Sun Paradox...I'm not making it up.